About Rationally Speaking

Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Monday, July 16, 2012

The misogyny wars

thewellversed.com

by Massimo Pigliucci

I have now been following, largely from a distance, what I’ve come to think of as the misogyny wars inside the atheist-skeptic movement (which has just recently made national news!). I’ve stayed away from the fray because I have had little to add to it, and because it is a treacherous territory where one is almost guaranteed of turning friends into enemies just by chiming in. Still, during my recent vacation in France and Italy (countries that have a lot to teach both about misogyny and women's liberation) I had some thoughts that may be worth sharing — at my own peril, naturally.

The first thing I need to say is that yes, as far as I can tell, the atheist-skeptic (hence forth A-S) movement does have a problem with women. Obviously, not every A-S does, and likely not even the majority (hard data do not exist, as far as I know). But reading the comments of some major figures (which shall go conveniently unmentioned), the commentaries on those comments by the average Joe-the-Atheist (mostly males), and from personal experience at countless “CON(s)” (can we please have a moratorium on using that darn abbreviation?) and meetups, it’s clear to me that there is a problem.

Now, one could reasonably argue (and indeed, people have argued) that the A-S community is simply a microcosm of society at large, and since the latter still shows obvious signs of misogyny, then we shouldn’t be surprised that so does the A-S movement (if you don’t think that society still has a problem with women you have simply not been paying attention, and you need to go back to Feminism 101, which I am not about to provide).

Well, yes, but this observation still doesn’t quite make things right for two reasons. First, just because someone else is misogynist it doesn’t provide an excuse for you to be one too, obviously. Second, and more pertinent to our discussion, A-S pride themselves in being open minded and rational (if not downright politically progressive — pace our small but vocal cadre of libertarian friends), and there is no rational defense of misogyny (if you disagree, may I again recommend Feminism 101?).

So, if women in the movement complain that A-S organization X or Y does not have a sufficiently well developed sexual harassment policy, or it does not enforce such policy swiftly and effectively enough, the people in charge of said organizations ought (moral) to listen carefully and act accordingly.

However (you knew this was coming, yes?), it doesn’t follow, as it has been claimed in the heat of the misogyny wars, that anything a woman says in this department goes and ought (again, moral) not to be questioned. For several reasons.

First off, and this should be obvious, “women” are not a monolithic category who see everything the same way. What may constitute borderline sexual harassment for one woman may be interpreted as innocuous or even welcome flirting by another. (I hope it’s clear that I’m talking about actual borderline cases, not instances of men brazenly groping women in public, or making threats of rape via Twitter.)

Second, and related to the first point, we do not want to create a social environment where people are constantly afraid of stepping across invisible, vague and always shifting boundaries. That would take the fun out of going to the bar after the conference with friends and, frankly, out of flirting with members of the opposite sex (or of the same sex, if you are so inclined). In other words, as we have seen in the workplace and even in schools, there is a danger of overdoing it in the area of political correctness, something that makes for the kind of overcautious and over-regulated society most of us really don’t want — especially the libertarians! (Remember the case a few years ago of a kindergarten child being expelled because he kissed a girl in his class?)

Third, and lastly, there is a danger in automatically assuming that group X (in this case women, but it could be an ethnic minority, or a religious one — including atheists themselves) is automatically right in every dispute regarding treatment of said group. It is well known, for instance, that racism is not confined to white people, and that pretty much any group is capable of xenophobia. An accusation of sexual harassment can not only get someone thrown out of a meeting or a bar, but can perhaps permanently tarnish his reputation in the relevant community, and ought (yup, moral!) to be treated accordingly. While it may make sense to default to the possibility that the charge is justified, any particular case deserves further investigation by the people in charge. Yes, this will complicate the job of conference organizers, so what? Nobody is obliged to organize a conference, but once you do you are expected to provide a certain number of services, a fair treatment of your guests being one.

So, where do we go from here? Here are three conceptually simple, yet I’m sure extremely difficult in practice, action items. First, let’s tone down the self-righteousness, on both sides. It just doesn’t help. Second, organizers of all future CON(s), you need to take the issue seriously, develop and clearly enunciate your policies, and be ready to deal with the consequences in a firm, if courteous and hopefully constructive, manner. Lastly, the A-S community needs to take the first step toward solving any problem: admit that there is one. Pretty straightforward, no?

P.S.: In what is perhaps a preview of what is about to come, something strange (or perhaps entirely predictable, depending on your point of view) happened this past weekend when I posted a link to thoughtful essay by Russell Blackford about the new American Atheists "don't hug unless you ask" policy over at my Google+ stream. I have been warned that I will likely be banned from (ironically) "freethought" discussion groups, and that my views will be seen as misogynistic and those of "a rape apologist, potential rapist." This is just really, really sad.

P.P.S.: Since it's clear from early comments that the point of my P.S. wasn't clear, I am clarifying it now. I meant the above as an example of the sort of trolling that goes on in these instances and is entirely unhelpful to a reasonable debate. I did NOT believe that I was going to be branded a rape apologist and be banned from discussion groups.

210 comments:

This article echoes my feelings exactly. There is definitely a streak of sexism in the atheist/skeptic community, but the whole "ask before you hug" debacle is an exercise in overzealousness. I totally understand and respect the desire to ensure that women have their personal spaces respected, but I think that having to ask EVERY time you give someone a friendly hug or pat on the shoulder really makes things awkward and stilted.

The trouble is, Chris, when guys want to give hugs to women they have just met or are just aquantences with. That is when things get awkward. I would never touch a woman unless we are already friends. If you want to hug someone you have just met, lift your arms for a hugging jesture or verbally ask. It is really not hard and it IS respectful.

I understand this point, but I feel that common sense more than adequately addresses this. Most people don't hug each other or engage in physical affection after at least knowing each other for a little while. For those who are a little too touchy-feely, a simple statement of consideration ("Please be considerate and aware that some people are uncomfortable hugging or touch strangers or new acquaintances" would likely suffice.

Seems pretty clear to me that atheistic people ought to be a little more sexually uninhibited than your average churchgoer for the simple reason that they lack all the religiously inspired reasons to be ashamed of one's body and sexuality that churches promote. It fascinates me how much of this IMO unhealthy attitude towards one's body and sex that otherwise religious-free people still seem to carry with them.

There's no way of knowing whether someone you just met has been traumatized by inappropriate touching or just doesn't like it. It's respectful to keep your hands out of their personal space without permission.

Could it be ... nah! ... that shame about the body and sexuality are NOT fundamentally religious? That perhaps they come with the human territory, regardless of what belief system is used to rationalize them?

This would mean that even atheists have to work to rid themselves of such shame.

You're not seriously suggesting that it's "shame" and an unhealthy attitude toward my body that keeps me from wanting to be touched by strangers, are you? I don't feel ashamed of my body; I feel possessive of my body.

I was merely answering the question about why someone might think atheistic women were more promiscuous, or sexually umhibited, than believers, and I stand by my answer. Remove all the religious reasons to be sexually ashamed, and a freer attitude is likely. Witness the healthier attitude the lesser-religious Europeans have towards nudity and sex compared to that of the more religious US and Middle East. No European country would impeach a leader over a blowjob. Seems a clear correlation to me.

I said nothing about an inappropriate invasion of someone else's personal space by strangers, a practice I personally abhor and publicly repudiate. Guys who attend atheist conferences expecting women there to accept their crude unwanted advances are dicks, end of story.

Isn't the piquant ingredient in all of this that, rather than the A-S community being a "microcosm" of society, there appears to exist a *correlation* between membership and (behavior that may be construed as) misogyny?

I take this to be the (sometimes feigned) suspicion of its detractors, and the (partly unwarranted) source of guilty conscience and concern for its members.

Guilt by association can be tricky to deal with - the harder you try, the more guilty you appear.

As a non-organized atheist and sceptic from Sweden (where such sentiments are the norm) Iooking at the U.S. with a mixture of incredulity and hope, I fear that 1) there may be a grain of truth in the correlation hypothesis; and that 2) even if there isn't, it will serve as an (effective) reactionary argument.

I should make it clear that I obviously do not believe in a general correlation between atheism / skepticism / rationalist inclinations, and misogyny. Quite the opposite!

However, given that the U.S. community is still somewhat small and marginalized, there may well be a host of psychological and socio-cultural factors that do indeed create such a correlation.

American media, it seems to me, portrays organized atheists rather like "Treckies", so perhaps it is no wonder that they attract marginal characters?

The mere fact that atheists need to organize themselves is enough to spark suspicion. In Sweden, people are generally very "cool" about their atheism / skepticism. We do have *one* small organization based on atheism, but it is often ridiculed for its single-mindedness.

I understand this point; but I would say it seems to me that American atheists don't so much "organize" as "associate" (with a few notable exceptions of course). And the pattern I see when they (we) do organize is that is to array themselves against some intrusion of religion into public policy, education etc. I have a hard time seeing it differently from any other form of association.

As a woman and an atheist, I see nothing wrong with hugs and pats on the back. To me they are akin to handshakes--except slightly friendlier. I see what is happening in the A-S community as a form of extremism that unfortunately, will only make the situation worse.

Sexual harassment occurs when something inappropriate is done. A pat on the backside for instance, or pressing too long and too hard in an embracing hug, rubbing up inappropriately against a woman is usually done purposely-- this is sexual harassment--and this is what anyone who deals with women should realize. Making suggestive comments can also be a form of sexual harassment. It is a tricky domain, as what you said, in that some women take these gestures as a form of flirtation, and some do not, makes it difficult to know what the "appropriate" behavior should be--so what is the best recourse?

I suggest remaining on friendly terms--and if a man finds himself interested in a woman-- let her make the first move.

Massimo, I get that you mean well and I really like you. However I believe that most of the current policies that have been put in place are for the most part a step in the right direction. I'd be curious to see if you agree with this.

I volunteer for CFI so am a bit more partial to them in general, but I also do like their policy and think that a quick read of the rationale behind it should put your concerns to rest. See Ron's blog post here: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/cfis_new_policy_on_hostile_conduct_harassment_at_conferences/

Though some of the concerns you state may even be worse in the absence of conference policies, as was the case until recently.

First concern:

First off, and this should be obvious, “women” are not a monolithic category who see everything the same way. What may constitute borderline sexual harassment for one woman may be interpreted as innocuous or even welcome flirting by another.

Well yes, that is exactly why it is important to draft a policy. To remove the subjectivity factor as much as possible. As Ronald Lindsay said: "As already indicated, our aim is to apply the policy in a way that is objectively reasonable using contemporary standards." This also applies to your second point re: vagueness

Third, and lastly, there is a danger in automatically assuming that group X (in this case women, but it could be an ethnic minority, or a religious one — including atheists themselves) is automatically right in every dispute regarding treatment of said group.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that currently we tend to see the exact opposite be the case (ie women speaking up going through intense scrutiny and outright disbelief) and that a culture shift in the opposite direction would probably take years if not decades, where exactly is it written that the word of one party is somehow given preference over the other? Again, if you look at Ron's blog post, he states that while there is no presumption of guilt, there is no presumption of innocence either. However all complaints will receive the due process of an investigation where necessary. Again, in the absence of a policy where there is no basis for following up with the other party, the possibility that one side's story will receive more weight is arguably greater.

As far as people's reputation being tarnished unfairly, this is directly addressed by the fact that all complaints are confidential. Again, in the absence of such an avenue, the odds are much higher that a valid complaint will not be addressed by the organizer and will instead be aired publicly with all that entails.

P.S.: In what is perhaps a preview of what is about to come, something strange (or perhaps entirely predictable, depending on your point of view) happened this past weekend when I posted a link to thoughtful essay by Russell Blackford about the new American Atheists "don't hug unless you ask" policy over at my Google+ stream. I have been warned that I will likely be banned from (ironically) "freethought" discussion groups, and that my views will be seen as misogynistic and those of "a rape apologist, potential rapist." This is just really, really sad.

It is. It's really sad that there are so many trolls around talking dishonest smack about a certain blog network with "Freethought" in the title. It is not the case that your views will be seen as misogynistic and those of "a rape apologist, potential rapist" because you linked to an essay by Russell Blackford. Not.the.case.

I'm not sure which part it is that Massimo finds sad - whether it's the "warning" or the content of the warning.

Massimo, you're surely not taking that "warning" at face value are you? You're not simply assuming it's accurate and disinterested and fair? Surely?

Please tell us you're not.

I infer from your post that you're pretty informed about the [cough] recent controversies, in which case you may be aware that there are people who dedicate themselves to posting vicious lies about us noisy women in as many places as they can find. Then again you may not, so I'll spell it out: there are people who are making a career of doing this. That "warning" is exactly the kind of thing I mean. It's malicious bullshit, intended to damage our reputations and credibility.

I feel this post is an excellent example of why you need to cite the people you disagree with. For instance:

this should be obvious, “women” are not a monolithic category who see everything the same way.

Are you stating the obvious because we need to start somewhere, or are you insinuating that some people disagree with you on this question? Or perhaps you're saying people agree with this principle, but fail to practice it? I really have no idea.

First, let’s tone down the self-righteousness, on both sides.

But what counts as self-righteousness? Without a concrete example, I don't know if you're criticizing a fringe group that I too would criticize, or if you're criticizing a group that includes myself. Without a concrete example, this is just another vague and shifting boundary like the one you criticized.

I don't pretend to speak for Massimo, but I have the same problem with self-righteousness on both sides of this argument, and from my point of view, the problem is this:

I watch the comment threads in blogs like Pharyngula and Thunderf00t's former FTB blog, and I've noticed that there's a distressingly large number of people on either side who unabashedly strawman anyone they perceive as having a differing opinion from themselves. I'm sure that on both sides, there are those who do so for what they perceive as a noble reason - combating the heinous evil they perceive the "other side" to be - just as I'm certain there are a number who are doing so because they find conflict and hatred and demonizing of the "other" to be thrillingly exciting.

What I'm also sure of is that behaving this way - demonizing anyone who disagrees with you - is corrosive to any sort of reasonable discussion and prevents any possibility of a mutually satisfactory conclusion. It just seems like for people on both sides of this thing, the desire to demean those who disagree with them comes far too easily, and giving them the benefit of the doubt that they're at least acting in good will, even where they hold differing opinions, comes far too slowly.

Mark Erickson, Pace--peace, with apologies to. Pace Massimo, I think it's tricky to say what role conference organizers should play in policing the behavior of attendees. I say "pace" because I like this post and agree with most of it. Contra--just against, with no apologies. Contra American Atheists, I think "no touching without asking" is not a good rule. Antonym of pace--something that connotes hostility. Non-pace? Antonym of contra: pro.

"Asking" does not have to mean verbal asking. If you want to hug somebody, lifting your arms toward them should be enough. If they respond by moving towards you, or lifting their arms back, that's consent.

> It is not the case that your views will be seen as misogynistic and those of "a rape apologist, potential rapist" because you linked to an essay by Russell Blackford. Not.the.case. <

Thank you for reassuring me, and also for giving me the benefit of the doubt about why I pulled that quote in the postscript. No, of course I don't believe it, I simply found it (sadly) representative of the kind of trolling that is not helping this discussion.

I wish Rebecca had given me the same benefit, considering that she knows me and my writings. But I take it the relentless attacks she has been subjected to lately have taken a bit of a toll. Hopefully this comment will clarify my position.

SimonSays,

I have no problems with anything at all in your comment. My post clearly states that we do need policies, but that such policies need to be reasonable. I don't think AA's "no hug" policy is reasonable. Ron's point that claims need to be treated confidentially and that they have to be investigated is eminently reasonable.

miller,

I did not link to specific quotes on purpose, because I do not want to make this post an attack on X or Y, but a general commentary on the problem(s). If something is too vague, I will be glad to explain it further.

Fair enough. Quoting your opponents is a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing. Without quotes, it's hard to tell how strong of a position you're taking, leading to chaos. With quotes, people feel personally attacked, leading to another kind of chaos.

If that is the case, perhaps sending a note to AA might be helpful. I've not seen a similar case of this provision elsewhere and they may have a rationale for this we're not aware of. Either way, it's still a step in the right direction in my estimation.

Massimo - whew, thank you. Yes it is very damn sad. And yes about Rebecca - I know from bitter experience how a relentless onslaught of garbage can fray the temper, and she gets far more of it than I do.

well, I argue that AA's policy is actually a step in the wrong direction, because it potentially trivializes the real problem while undermining the sense of community that we are all trying very hard to build.

Pace Massimo, I think the P.S. was wide open to both possible interpretations: sad that you were warned, and sad that you believe that you will be labeled and banned. So whatever bias a reader brought will completely determine the meaning taken. Very understandable that even someone familiar with your work could - without thinking - take the second meaning. I was confused, but leaned toward the second myself. This type of debate is a minefield, but many mines can be avoided if you have someone else proofread it before you publish.

point taken. Though *all* RS posts are in fact proofread by our editor before publication. But as you say, everyone brings his/her own background assumptions to reading, especially of potentially ambiguous material. I hope I have clarified the intended meaning now, though.

There are always extremists on any view (yes, even moderate extremists) so you were going to be lambasted (or just basted over a fire) regardless of what you said.

And in some cases, when people's emotions have been raised, their normal and rational responses go by the wayside in favour of kneejerk reactions. (Like you, I'm not naming names.) The old saying went, "Speak when you're angry and you'll give the best speech you'll ever regret," but now people don't feel any regret for what they say.

I miss the days before the internet when it took time to reply to something written. Before one could respond with a letter to an editor or writer, one had to sit down and think over what was read. By then, one either caught on to what was said or calmed down and didn't spew vitriol.

Now, unless something contains a smiley or qualifiers, everything gets taken literally and the worst is assumed.

Good post Massimo, you give a good overview of the need for harassment policies, address some the excessive rhetoric being used, and did so in a thoughtful way. All of which are needed in what all too often becomes an overheated internet flame war.

However, your post script repeats mischaracterizations used by those who oppose feminism in the atheist and skeptic communities. Skimming over your google+ it seems like your basing it on the word of a person who opens like this:

I consider a hug an assault (technically a battery), and a handshake gross, and touching manipulative.

and in later comments goes on to air a laundry list of off topic grievances with Rebecca and others. Not the most reliable of sources.

see my comment above in response to Ophelia and Rebecca. Since the postscript seems to be particularly prone to misunderstanding, I have added a post-postscript to the original post to clarify my position and why I brought up the example.

More false equivalency? If I hear "each side is wrong" one more time I think I'll burst. No, there is clearly a right side. One side is fighting for women to be seen as equals and not second class or sex objects in the A&S movement. One side is trying to educate others about male privilege, sexism, and sexual harassment within the movement. That side is being harassed, trivialized, and reputations are being ruined. There is no room for apathy or so-called moderation here. We are either going to take this movement forward or we are going to continue to hurt and devalue women.

Righteousness has to do with smugness and confidence in one's superior morality. Rightness has to do with being factually (or, perhaps, morally) correct.

Regardless of who is right about what, it's clear to me that the "side" that thinks only it is "trying to educate others" and that "There is no room for apathy or so-called moderation here" (which reminds me of "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists!") is far, far more self-righteous.

It's really not even close. It is almost as ridiculous to say that both sides exhibit equal amounts of self-righteousness as it would be to say that both sides make equal amounts of rape threats/jokes.

"More false equivalency?"

That said, the OP did not necessarily equate the sides. He said that both sides should exhibit less self-righteousness. This is true.

"Regardless of who is right about what, it's clear to me that the "side" that thinks only it is "trying to educate others" and that "There is no room for apathy or so-called moderation here" (which reminds me of "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists!") is far, far more self-righteous."

There is no moderation when it comes to sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. No, sorry. If you think sexism and sexual harassment aren't as bad as those other things, you have some growing to do. You either value being a decent human being or stay willfully ignorant and remain sexist.

there may be a misunderstanding here about what my call for moderation concerns. Of course there is no moderate position to be held about sexism (or racism, for that matter): it's bad, period.

But there is moderation to be called for in how we talk and act about it. The example in question here, discussed by Russell Blackford in the post I linked to above, is AA's overly reaching "no-hugs" policy, which - it can be argued - doesn't really address the actual issue and potentially undermines a sense of community by attempting to over-regulate normal human interactions.

Can you come up with any other examples? I don't agree with that policy either. That is one aspect of a policy from one organization that has not been involved in this debate. The "no hugs" policy has been blown out of proportion to make people concerned about sexual harassment look anti-sex, hysterical, and as they say "totalitarian".

why would I need another example? I haven't presented a systematic study, partly because there are no data quantitative data I'm aware of, partly because that's not within the scope of a blog post. However, there are cases in society at large (again, I'm trying to stay away from specifics because I do not want this to turn into a name-calling contest) where a member of a minority or protected group has used his/her status as a way of unfairly smearing or attacking people they felt were undesirable. That's why nobody is automatically right and we have procedures (like good sexual harassment policies, such as CFI's).

Those of us that are standing up against sexual harassment, sometimes to the detriment of our reputations, are indeed right. We are saying there is a real problem and it needs to be addressed appropriately. Calling both sides self-righteous is insulting to those of us who are doing the unpopular thing by speaking out. We should not be compared to the misogynists, victim-blamers, and those who have been involved in gas-lighting.

Because the one cited is not representative of the anti-harassment policies put into effect by most organisations.

I also object to the obsession with the word "ask". I "ask" for hugs by extending my arms, just like I "ask" if someone wants to shake hands by extending mine. Certain people have focused on the word ask in order to trivialise the need for anti-harassment policies, asking questions such as "would married couples need to ask permission to touch each other at conferences".The principle of charity is a lost art, apparently, and it shocks me to see philosophers like Stangroom and Blackford engage in such uncharitable readings of that particular policy, and extend that criticism to all policies

"The principle of charity is a lost art, apparently, and it shocks me to see philosophers like Stangroom and Blackford engage in such uncharitable readings of that particular policy,"

The principle of charity facilitates conversation by having people assume the best about their interlocutors' arguments. For example, if someone says that concern about problem X consumes too much time and attention, it is wrong to assume they think X is not a problem, or that they actually support X, etc.

However, when evaluating a proscriptive set of rules, rules humans will apply to punish people, one should consider ambiguity in such rules negative and potentially chilling. A rule that technically forbids married and dating people from spontaneously touching their significant other is a bad one, even if it would be common sense not to apply the rule under that interpretation.

Relying on prosecutorial discretion by leaders who have, in the past, failed regarding sexual harassment issues is a bad idea. The notion of acting in an environment in which normal social interactions are technically not allowed is unwelcome, even if unreasonable interpretations of the rule are not typical.

The principle of charity does not mean that we should endorse rules that are even more poorly written than they are conceived, not when better rules are possible, not when the rules suggested are worse than the status quo, not because the authors of the rules had good intentions, and not as a way to selfishly signal how progressive and egalitarian we are when the rules would have a net negative effect if applied.

"A rule that technically forbids married and dating people from spontaneously touching their significant other is a bad one"

Again, only according to the most uncharitable reading of the policy.

Technically, if I were to merely touch somebody without their consent, that is battery in the eyes of the law. Claiming the AA AHP prevents someone from spontaneously touching their significant other is like claiming laws concerning battery do the same.People who make claims like this forget that someone actually has to file charges to begin with.

"Again, only according to the most uncharitable reading of the policy."

I'm not sure why you say it is bad to not interpret proposed rules according to the principle of charity. I can think of two main ways to reach such a conclusion.

The first would be to assume that since the principle of charity is so useful in interpreting and debating with those who seem to disagree, it should be applied in other contexts in which interpretation is called for, barring specific reasons to think otherwise. This would be followed by not thinking of any such reasons.

The second would be to think of specific reasons why the policy that is best in the one context is best in the other one.

The assumption in the first, if made, would be unwarranted. The contexts are different, so we should expect different ways of judging to be optimal in the two cases. As for the rest, there are specific reasons to apply the principle of charity in conversation and not to apply it in judging proposed rules. For one, ambiguity regarding what conduct is punishable is unhealthy in a statute and grants excessive power to the judges while creating a broad swathe of unnatural human interaction under which it is suspected that the rules may apply. Yet treating ambiguous sentences by those with whom we disagree as being as sound as we can construe them somewhat counters our biases against interpreting others well, biases that we succumb to in our attempts to "win" arguments.

You have not yet said why you think it is a good idea to pass rules having evaluated them as if they will be most reasonably interpreted by judges. It seems that the opposite should apply, and we should fear that rules be misconstrued by power-corrupted judges, and strive to word rules so that they have as little potential to do harm as possible.

"it shocks me to see philosophers like Stangroom and Blackford engage in such uncharitable readings of that particular policy"

One possible resolution of this would be to conclude that the professional philosophers were correct not to apply the principle of charity in this case. Perhaps you could ask them why they did not. I'm not sure what you think the odds are that they are right not to apply it, but surprise is a sign one's worldview has been wrong - whether the the wrong bit was your estimation of the philosophers' quality reasoning or the proper purview of the principle of charity, you'll have to figure out.

"I'm not sure why you say it is bad to not interpret proposed rules according to the principle of charity"

Because it leads to nonsensical claims like "this policy prevents me from touching my spouse without her verbal consent" maybe?

At the top of AA's policy it clearly states that it's a living document. For the people who complain about "FTBullies" doing nothing constructive ever and only writing blog posts to then go and write non-constructive blog posts and twitter comments instead of just contacting AA and raising the issue (and, again, I actually agree that the wording could be improved) so that the policy could be improved strikes me as hypocritical.These criticisms weren't offered as some sort of reductio ad absurdum, they were offered as a problem with the intent of the policy, calling it "infantilising to women", etcetera.

"These criticisms weren't offered as some sort of reductio ad absurdum, they were offered as a problem with the intent of the policy, calling it 'infantilising to women', etcetera."

"If I were thinking of going to an American Atheists convention...I’d find it off-putting to be told how to negotiate touching ('no touching other people without asking') or even just be “encouraged to ask for unequivocal consent.” This crosses the line from what’s the conference’s business [...] to what’s not. It’s up to me, I think, how I handle the vast number of decisions that are in the realm of etiquette, not law or even ethics...It’s paternalistic and infantilizing – suitable for managing a bunch of 10 year olds, but not for running a conference attended by adults."

Such policies do infantilize and convey the paternalistic attitude of their authors. That has little to do with the poor wording of the specific policy being discussed. It's true that the infantilization under such a policy would be more extreme than that under a more sensible policy. But a less restrictive policy could still be similar in kind and infantilizing. The extreme possible interpretation is not at all core to that criticism.

In any case, the policy doesn't directly prevent anything. It just makes behavior punishable after the fact if the touched person chooses to pursue their claim under the rule.

"[It is bad to not interpret proposed rules according to the principle of charity] [b]ecause it leads to nonsensical claims like 'this policy prevents me from touching my spouse without her verbal consent' maybe?"

I don't want to unfairly read too much into your wording. But something seems hinted at here, and that is faith that the policy will be carried out in accordance with its original intention.

Giving the power to punish to humans is not something to be done lightly. Trusting them to limit their use of the power to the intent of the rulemakers when the rule actually gives them more power is naive. And there is an unbroken spectrum from "married" to "just met," and in all cases, regardless of non-verbal social cues, the touching person would be in the wrong under the rule as it is worded if no verbal consent was given.

The second people get the tiniest amount of power, they often abuse it. Recently, someone who founded a new blog network because he disliked being censored promised not to restrict content simply because he disagreed with it in the new network. He swiftly abused his power by banning someone for posting something he disagreed with. Such things happen all the time. It's not extraordinarily evil at all, it's just petty human nature.

There are many atheist leaders who have bullied people and lost my trust. I don't trust them to preside over a living document or a document with the rules as they are now. Least of all would I trust them in any dispute between a man and a woman. Better for them to focus on organizing the conference and leave me to settle any disputes like an adult.

To add to Magicthighs last point: Organizers already have the right to eject participants or to ask the venue management to do so at their discretion-even if the events are at a public location. It doesn't happen very often because most affairs are friendly and orderly. So this is not some new power being asserted by these organizations. It is simply formalizing a code of conduct and a process.

No. They criminalize physically harmful behavior, the accused get to confront evidence against them in court, there is a judge who isn't part of their close community, etc.

"The power to eject people (because that's the punishment we're speaking of) from a conference shouldn't be given lightly to the organisers of that conference. Right."

That makes sense. All the cases in which the organizer was successfully sued that I had read about were specifically free speech cases. I didn't realize organizers generally have as much power as they do absent such circumstances. That makes a limiting policy they will feel pressure to follow attractive.

"The same goes for laws, so what's your point?"

You had phrased it in a way that I thought was odd and might have some point to it. I was checking to see if you had a point by describing the rule's effects in what I see as the most natural way. It's part of how my criticism of it is separate from its motivation. Rules enacted have effects tied to their operation and apart from their intent.

"Oh, by the way, did you contact AA to help them improve the policy? Let me guess, no?"

I read a post showing where it came from - a successful policy that had its limiting clauses obviously, ostentatiously excised.

"Finally, I have a concern with this phrase being worked into policies without clarifying language: “No touching other people without asking.” This line comes from the OpenSF conference as reported here. In the OpenSF policy, they go on to make some important clarifications, such as “please do that awkward ‘wanna hug?’ gesture before actually hugging.” This refining language is critical; yet, elucidating phrases like this from the OpenSF policy are being left out of our policies.

In another adopted policy, any touching without explicit permission is banned. In effect, shaking hands without asking first becomes harassment. Who asks, “may I shake your hand?” of peers and friends? As for hugging and hand shakes, I think it is important for policies to allow non-verbal, body language assent to count as freeing someone of guilt as a sexual harasser. The original OpenSF policy includes this provision after requiring no touching without permission: “unless you already have that sort of relationship with them.” Again, this is a critical addition to provide leeway between friends; it should not be left out of our policies. Many friends pat each other on the back as a greeting or as congratulations. This kindly gesture should be allowed among people who have that type of relationship. People should not have to be paranoid that friendly gestures equal harassment. Of course, there is a big difference between a pat on the back and a pat on the butt. There is also a big difference from a hug among friends and a pervert using hugs to create sexualized physical contact. We need to protect people from the latter while allowing people with prior relationships to act in accordance with the boundaries of their friendships, which may include an assumption that hugging is OK."

Do they really need my help with this?

Guys, so you know when you were looking for a good policy to copy, so you found one that seems to work in practice and straight up adopted its stringencies but, due to incompetence, malice, leftist victim favoritism, stupidity, failure to think ahead, or some other deficiency, discarded its obviously necessary qualifications limiting what is considered harassment? 'Guys, don't do that.'

No, actually. The contact doesn't have to be physically harmful, just offensive.

"the accused get to confront evidence against them in court, there is a judge who isn't part of their close community, etc."

And the same goes for conferences, unless you think someone will be evicted for brushing up against me in passing.

Thanks for admitting you had no point in saying anti-harassment policies don't prevent harassment.

"I read a post showing where it came from - a successful policy that had its limiting clauses obviously, ostentatiously excised."

So the answer to my question is "no".

I took the liberty of contacting Dave Silverman of American Atheists to ask him if Kazez or Blackford (both of whom wrote criticisms of the AA policy) contacted his organisation to provide feedback so AA could adapt their policy. Again, the answer was "no".Funny, since one of the criticisms these they voiced of the people they refer to as "FTBullies" is that they just write blog posts and don't do anything constructive.

"due to incompetence, malice, leftist victim favoritism, stupidity, failure to think ahead, or some other deficiency"

Massimo, it really isn't that unlikely you'd get called crazy things. I was, for saying something no more controversial, although certainly less eloquently. I compiled a list of the various names I was called in this comment: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/06/13/the-great-penis-debate/#comment-89754

Of course, I don't think anyone *important* said this stuff...this is the internet, where the anonymous haters come out to play. It says a bit about the potential utility of blog comments, but I don't think it says that much about the community.

Wow - that's disingenuous. You took part in the "Great Penis Debate" video - the one where one of the guys (not you) got red in the face screaming his rage about Stephanie. It was an ugly, nasty display, and you took part in it, though you were less belligerent than the chief screamers.

This is a great and very reasonable post. I find it really hard to believe that anyone that knows your writing could interpret your comment on freethought as your actual position on that matter. One of the problems in such discussions is that they tend to deteriorate quite fast by accusations from both sides, and then there is no ground for a fruitful conversation on this important topic.

predictably, and disingenuously, you took my comment out of context. My comment was in response to the claim that the Constitution guarantees the rights of minorities. Yes, it does. But: a) the rights of minorities are not overwhelming of any other consideration; b) said minorities have to be identified and rights have to be negotiated by social agreement. Also notice that "minorities" in the context of the G+ discussion does not refer to women (which are not a minority anyway), but to people who do not wish to be touched under any circumstances.

Oh, you're the only one allowed to quote mine? That's cute. Either way, you held to the stance throughout the discussion that the right to deny a hug is apparently not to be upheld. I don't see how that doesn't fulfill your words as quoted.

And 'minority' and 'majority' does not always refer to numbers, it most often refers to power. And why, exactly, do the rights of touch-averse people matter less than the privileges of the rest?

I like being cute. Of course everyone has a right to deny a hug, but we are talking about a policy that threats no-hugging as the default, and hugging without prior consent as a generally unacceptable social behavior, that's what I'm objecting to. Yes, of course majority often needs power, but in a democracy it also means a balance in negotiating rules of conduct.

... Hugging without prior consent is generally viewed as unacceptable. It's the kind of thing charges can be filed for.

And I have no idea what you were trying to say wrt. majority and power. I said majority can be defined in terms of having power and therefore privilege, and minority by the absence of both. In that context, your reply is nonsensical.

please read carefully before replying. My nonsensical response about majorities and power simply acknowledged your point - meaning I was agreeing with you.

As for your first bit about hugging w/out consent being generally viewed as unacceptable, that is precisely why we don't need a special policy to regulate it. Most adult human beings know that and act accordingly.

Then again, some human beings are not normal, and they end up being arrested:

I think what you mean is "Because Massimo has a record of not being a misogynist moron."

The main problem with the feminist side in all of this has been a guilty-until-proven-innocent-mentality, in which people who disagree are not given the benefit of the doubt with respect to their motivations, intent, or even meaning when their words are at all ambiguous.

You know, that's an interesting article you post there. Because this guy seems to not be very much in danger of facing any significant punishment for what he did. Arrest, yeah. Charges? No. It seems, in fact, that there's no clear law on the subject.

> Sexual harassment in general is usually illegal too, along with stalking, etc. Are you arguing that these policies in their entirety are moot, then? <

No, the point was precisely that there is a complex relation between what is legal/illegal, moral/immoral, and socially acceptable/unacceptable. Which is why any black & white answer to this sort of questions is likely to be an oversimplification.

Do you really think it is more important to wrecklessly hug (of course, there won't be any complaints whatsoever if the hug is welcome) than it is to establish a solid boundary for women's safety?

Are you really equating the loss of your absolute right to hug without permission (even though I doubt you EVER hug without implied permission) with a person's loss of her absolute right not to have upskirt photos taken or a strange man's tongue shoved in her mouth?

You are encouraged to ask for unequivocal consent for all activities during the conference. No touching other people without asking. This includes hands on knees, backs, shoulders—and hugs (ask first!). There are folks who do not like to be touched and will respect and like you more if you respect their personal space.

If someone has "branded" you "a rape apologist, potential rapist" in a public forum, this is actionable conduct. In this lawyer's legal opinion, suit should be filed immediately - no "cease and desist" letter. File this latest episode under No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.

I tried constructive. It was bowled over and dismissed by Massimo himself in the G+ thread. Oh, and try not to be a derailing dummy - the "you're not constructive!" argument is a classic when a privileged person wants a discussion pointed in a different direction. See http://www.derailingfordummies.com/complete.html#hostile for further clarification.

Meanwhile, Karl's legal threats above are nothing short of blatant silencing tactics, and largely on a level with trolls wishing rape or death upon feminists. So yeah, I stand by what I said.

Well, a lot of PZ's readers find Massimo less reasonable than PZ does.

Related to that, to PZ,and even more to his readers, just because Massimo and others do note that PC-ism isn't dead in this world, or that outrage volume controls can (and are) deliberately turned up to 11, doesn't make Massimo or others practitioners of "false equivalence."

That said, on one issue related to Rebecca (namely, her refusal to apologize for a Tweet with some apparently incorrect info, like the name of the person!) PZ' been more than zealous, at times, on this issue.

But, I've had "observations" about PZ before. For example, his claim that atheists had less sexual guilt than religious ppl when both Jews and Unitarians were lower yet. Or his insinuation that you have to be a liberal to be a true atheist. (News to Sam Harris, I'm sure, and to Hitchens [not a liberal] while he was still alive.)

And, on another subject entirely, another Gnu-er, Ron Lindsay, has said something plenty dumb enough, with his claim at CFI that wealth is no big deal within humanism.

And Gnus, whether at FtB or elsewhere, wonder why others do point out their foibles at times?

WARNING: so far this discussion has gone relatively well, considering the subject matter, and I'd like things to continue that way. But I reserve the right to both delete individual posts I think are offensive or close the entire thread to further discussion, if necessary. Yup, I dictate things 'round here. It's my blog.

I don't think this is as simple as there being two 'sides'. I think there are multiple sides, but only two that are worth discussing. I think they do share the same goal: That women are people and expect to be treated as such. Where I think this has fallen down is that neither of these 'sides' can really talk to each other anymore, they only talk past each other. I totally get that one 'side' feels that harassment is a problem and more should be done about it. That, of course, is valid perspective. The other 'side', which includes several women, don't discount that harassment happens, but don't feel that it is a major problem and not something they experience in any great degree and therefore the current arrangements are adequate. In particular, they object to their experiences being dismissed, often as being uninformed even if they have a feminist background. I think the first group tends to over generalise their own feelings to all women, which feels dismissive to those on the other side. I think the second group tends to ignore the way on going minor grievances can accumulate to run down those on the other side, which also feels dismissive.

So, in the end this seems to me to be more about personality types more than anything else. Both 'sides' feel they're being talked down to and dismissed and that's where a large part of the escalation and animosity comes from.

This doesn't consider the other 'sides' that really aren't worth discussing: Real trolls who enjoy watching the world burn. Real entitled assholes who feel women are their property. etc.

It doesn't really matter if *you* have not been harassed, other women have. Women saying they have not been harassed should be supportive of policies to protect *all* women. There is no excuse. The women I see trying to make other women look hysterical for speaking out seem to be keeping company with anti-harassment policy men.

Am I missing something? Does anyone ever walk up to a stranger and hug him or her? Because if someone did that to me, I would freak out.

And I'm a big hugger. I love hugs. But I have friends that aren't so into it, and I don't hug them, ever. I have one friend who is deeply disturbed by it.

I come from a family of huggers. When someone brings a new friend or significant other over, my relatives will, in fact, say something like, "We're big huggers around here. Is it okay if I hug you goodbye?"

I hug goodbye to people I've just met but spent some time getting to know. The appropriateness of this hug is determined by social cues. Some people are worse than others at reading social cues. They should know this about themselves and ask.

Hey, I've had people ask to hug me goodbye after I've recently met them. Not a problem.

Because, really, when are you ever hugging people that you don't already know well enough to determine the appropriateness of that act?

So why are you acting like the sky is falling, like we've all been put into chastity belts? Given how minor this issue is, relative to everything else, why emphasize it at all?

For balance? Like how reporters think they have to say, "Every respectable scientist in the world agrees that climate change is an issue. Some evangelical pastors think otherwise..."

How is that a rational appraisal of facts?

Oh, and if you were willing to wade in with specific examples instead of inscrutable generalities about what some people kind of said, you really shouldn't have said anything at all.

I find your comment very rude. Does Massimo need your permission, an anonymous person, to write what he thinks is right in his own blog? Maybe he should send his posts to you for approval, to see if he need to add examples?

You do not need any permission to write here but you do need to have the courtesy to write in a civil way, especially when you are a guest here, that's all. You can disagree with him (as I do sometimes) without telling him what he can or can't write in his blog.

I think the policy is just poorly written. It states that unequivocal consent must be obtained before touching someone. This can only mean verbal consent (it's about the only unequivocal form of communication), which to many people seems a little overboard when in most cases social cues will suffice.

What I think the policy is intending is to stop people basically running up and grabbing someone they don't know, but the way it's presently worded does far more than prohibit such socially unacceptable behaviour.

Great post and probably a welcome effort to “dial-down” some of the self-righteousness that seems to be muddying the waters.

Although it is an interesting dynamic or process by which that tends to happen. From what I have seen – on both various “feminist” and “masculinist” sites – each side has some justifiable arguments – although the former generally more so than the latter – which the other side tends to categorically reject or refuse to give any credence to. Not surprising then that the “conversation” very rapidly degenerates and deteriorates to name-calling of varying degrees of odiousness.

As for your comment about “dictating things around here”, I think that is also part of, or a reflection of, that problem and dynamic. Blog owners – and website owners – are certainly entitled to limit and control the discussions they are hosting. However, if the rules are applied inequitably – as certainly seems to be the case in more than a few of the others – then they tend to look less like forums for civilized discussion and more like echo chambers and bully pulpits.

"Great post and probably a welcome effort to “dial-down” some of the self-righteousness that seems to be muddying the waters.

Although it is an interesting dynamic or process by which that tends to happen. From what I have seen – on both various “feminist” and “masculinist” sites – each side has some justifiable arguments – although the former generally more so than the latter – which the other side tends to categorically reject or refuse to give any credence to. Not surprising then that the “conversation” very rapidly degenerates and deteriorates to name-calling of varying degrees of odiousness."

See, Massimo? *This* is the problem with your post. This fellow thinks, "Both sides do it!" He also compares the feminist movement with MRAs. This is what he got out of this post.

No, I don’t so compare them. You are, I think, with all due respect, engaging in categorical thinking: my sex, right or wrong; four legs good, two legs bad. Guilty, I think, of, as suggested by Massimo of seeing both “feminism” and “masculinism” as monolithic entities which all women and all men subscribe to without a quibble or a qualm.

As I have argued on a dozen different blogs, and as I pointed out in that post, feminists generally have the better and more credible and justifiable arguments; they are the ones more generally subjected to verbal and physical threats. But that does not mean that some feminists aren’t off the walls themselves or that some men don’t have justifiable arguments against feminist dogma of one sort or another. Refusing to see those other cases really tends to make those people doing so more a part of the problem rather than being part of the solution.

You have actually analyzed all of those statements or claims and proven categorically that they have no basis in fact?

While I haven’t read in as much depth as I would like you might want to take a look at the Wikipedia article on “Equity and gender feminism” which at least suggests that more than a few – both men and women – subscribe more to the latter than to the former. Which is just a little problematic ....

I've never seen a credible claim that "dogma" is a word that is remotely applicable to feminist theory and ideology. A single example will, of course, negate my judgment. Feel free to present your best example.

"Equity feminists" are just libertarians. Nobody calls themselves "gender feminists". The distinction exists entirely within the mind of self-labeled "equity feminists," who appear to believe that s imply changing laws, without trying to also change cultural norms, is sufficient to end discrimination against women. Their beliefs are contradicted by most of the available evidence, but that's par for the course with libertarians. I don't view "gender feminists" as a valid conceptual category.

Of course, this is just one of many conceptual disagreements among people who call themselves feminists, which undermines the legitimacy of your use of the word "dogma" to describe feminism. Therefore we can deduce that "feminist dogma" isn't really a thing, and how can there possibly be justifiable arguments against something that doesn't really exist?

I will also note that your conflation of "men" with "people who criticize feminism" reveals your own prejudices. Men can be sexists, men can be feminists. Women can be sexists, and women can be feminists.

I've never seen a credible claim that "dogma" is a word that is remotely applicable to feminist theory and ideology.

Considering that one reasonable definition of the word is “an authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true”, I don’t see that as being terribly inapplicable to “feminist theory and ideology”. But maybe you think that “dogma” is something restricted to a religious context – you might want to take a look at the Wikipedia article on the “Central dogma of molecular biology”.

A single example will, of course, negate my judgment. Feel free to present your best example.

Considering that you concede the existence of the “many conceptual disagreements among people who call themselves feminists” – sort of like the “conceptual disagreement” between Western and Eastern [Orthodox] Catholics on the Trinity [filioque] – which are apparently little more than opinions, I would say that the even the Wikipedia article on the topic of “feminism” provides an extensive set of examples. But, more particularly, it seems that various “sects” within the feminist movement have and have had some rather bitter and acrimonious “discussions” on the issue of pornography – the “feminist sex wars” referenced in the article.

In addition, and a little closer to home, unless you have managed to come up with a citation of a study that confirms your earlier assertion that “the number of people out there who do assume that women are automatically right is quite tiny compared to those who have ‘women are lying’ as the default setting”, I would say that that qualifies as only an opinion and an article of faith – apparently held to be “absolutely true” – and so an element of your “feminist dogma”.

Right – they are, obviously, no true feminists. But no group that I know of call themselves “terrorists” – it’s always “freedom fighters” or “God’s Warriors” or the like: a rose by any other name ....

However the distinction still seems a valid one as it would appear that at least more than a few feminists and feminist groups are less interested in equality than in turning the tables – maybe with some justification as the current arrangements look rather inequitable in many cases. But the consequence looks more along the line of the same-old “them against us” that, one might argue, is the crux of the problem. And, for instance there is this from the Radfem Hub:

Females need each other. Females should prioritize the good of Females. Feminism provides a new lens through which to analyze What Females Need. What would happen if all Females were Feminist?

Feminism certainly has its values – the Canadian suffragette Nellie McClung argued that no nation rises higher than its women, something Muslims might want to reflect on – but surely “Feminism” isn’t the highest ideal we can aspire to. Contrary to what the author of the above seems to suggest.

Of course, this is just one of many conceptual disagreements among people who call themselves feminists, which undermines the legitimacy of your use of the word "dogma" to describe feminism.

How so? That Western Catholics subscribe to one set of dogmas and the Eastern Orthodox subscribe to another set and Protestants subscribe to other sets really doesn’t say much against the argument that Christianity – somewhat analogous to feminism – is comprised of dogmas.

Therefore we can deduce that "feminist dogma" isn't really a thing, and how can there possibly be justifiable arguments against something that doesn't really exist?

Of course it doesn’t exist as a thing like a table or a chair – it exists as an abstraction, a word denoting certain sets of “authoritative principles, beliefs, or statements of ideas or opinion” which different sets of people subscribe to. And your reference to “conceptual disagreements” suggests that there are more than a few “justifiable arguments” – in the views of some at least – against the dogmas of the various “sects” under the umbrella of “feminism”. But, considering the Stanford Encyclopedia article on “Liberal Feminism” and the Wikipedia one on the general classification, it seems like the number of feminist sects is closing in on that for Christian ones [38,000].

I will also note that your conflation of "men" with "people who criticize feminism" reveals your own prejudices.

Gosh, I didn’t think they were showing .... But seriously, apart from the fact that I don’t see what your “people who criticize feminism” is actually referring to, I really don’t see how you can reach that conclusion as the closest candidate – “some men have justifiable arguments against feminist dogma” – was anything but a categorical statement: it referred to some men, not all of them; nor did it exclude some women. Maybe a bias in play there?

Men can be sexists, men can be feminists. Women can be sexists, and women can be feminists.

So. Men – and women – are either sexists or feminists? Seems that would be a rather narrow way of looking at things – somewhat suggestive of the highly problematic “you’re with us or you’re against us” .... And maybe even suggestive of “gender feminism” ...

"“women” are not a monolithic category who see everything the same way. What may constitute borderline sexual harassment for one woman may be interpreted as innocuous or even welcome flirting by another. (I hope it’s clear that I’m talking about actual borderline cases, not instances of men brazenly groping women in public, or making threats of rape via Twitter.)"

This caveat ignores the fact that policies are not trying to suppress welcomed behaviour. Policies state that if a behaviour is unwelcome and the person doing it does not stop when told it is unwelcome, that is harassment.

Also, given the current climate of sexism and automatically treating women's testimony as suspect, we have a long way to go before "assuming women are automatically right" is the most important problem on our plate.

Definitely a bit of a problem. Although one might argue, particularly absent you not providing any specific cases, that that is a basic limitation of interpersonal relationships and interactions. I very much doubt you would be up-in-arms if I went to the police and said that you had robbed me and they were “automatically suspect of my testimony”: it generally has nothing to do with our sex and everything to do with legal questions of evidence. Which is, if I’m not mistaken, the sine qua non of being a skeptic.

... we have a long way to go before "assuming women are automatically right" is the most important problem on our plate.

Maybe so. But some of the fellows over on A Voice for Men – where I was posting for awhile before being banned (politics makes for strange bedfellows – and blog policies) for defending feminism – seemed to be expressing some real pain over being shafted by the justice system which seems frequently to be working on that basis in divorce and child-custody cases.

While many of the arguments over there are decidedly off-the-wall and while many of those custody battles might be cases of sour-grapes and a refusal to accept responsibility for the men’s own egregious activities, it seems to me that with some million divorces per year just in the US alone it is certainly plausible that a significant percentage of them are, at least, serious miscarriages of justice due to that assumption. Or maybe you have analyzed all million cases this year – and for the last 10 or 20 years – and proven that all such claims are null and void.

I very much doubt you would be up-in-arms if I went to the police and said that you had robbed me and they were “automatically suspect of my testimony”: it generally has nothing to do with our sex and everything to do with legal questions of evidence. Which is, if I’m not mistaken, the sine qua non of being a skeptic.

We're not the police and we're not talking about police reports here. We're talking about women who are fellow skeptics, fellow attendees at conferences, who are not filing formal charges, but merely reporting their experiences with harassment.

To act as if you are the police and to treat the women as if they are formally accusing someone of a crime, is not the sina qua non of skepticism. It is "hyperskepticism," a disease which afflicts many white male skeptics when dealing with issues that don't affect them. I am talking about the practice of automatically assuming women are liars, with no corroborating evidence, simply because the subject at hand involves sexual harassment.

Or maybe you have analyzed all million cases this year – and for the last 10 or 20 years – and proven that all such claims are null and void.

From what I understand, in cases where father sue for custody, they get it about 50% of the time. Usually, though, they don't sue for custody. And our culture being what it is, custody is assigned to the parent who does the lion's share of childraising, which is usually the woman.

The remedy for this is more feminism, which encourages childcare by men. MRAs want to blame their troubles on feminists, rather than on rigid gender roles, which hurt both men and women and which feminists try to break down.

To act as if you are the police and to treat the women as if they are formally accusing someone of a crime, is not the sine qua non of skepticism.

Considering that sexual harassment, if proven, can land a person in jail I would call that a crime. And reporting that to someone who can make a sentence of one sort or another stick, whether it is jail or eviction from the venue, would seem to qualify as a “formal accusation”. Unless you think they should take those actions on the basis of hearsay.

I am talking about the practice of automatically assuming women are liars, with no corroborating evidence, simply because the subject at hand involves sexual harassment.

I have no doubt whatsoever that women in general are subjected to significant and rather egregious levels of “sexual harassment” – far more than what men are subjected to. And I think it is decidedly deplorable at best and it almost makes me ashamed to self-identify as one of the latter. However, I think you are seriously misinterpreting the situation: it is not the case of “automatically assuming that women are liars with no evidence to justify that assumption”, but a case of there simply being no tangible evidence that the crime actually took place. It really would make, or should make, no difference whatsoever, in principle at least, if either of us went to the police and claimed the other was sexually harassing us: in the absence of some evidence – eye-witnesses, torn clothing, photographs (with circles and arrows on the back of each one) – the police, or others to whom the “accusation” is made, are entitled if not obliged to tell us – each of us – to go play in the traffic. You might want to put yourself, mentally, into the shoes of the prosecutor trying that case, either case, in the absence of physical evidence.

But for instance the “informal accusation” at last year’s TAM that some man was taking “up-skirt” photos turned out to be simply some woman complaining that some man was making her “uncomfortable” because he was wandering around with some common piece of photographic equipment. Which was then blown way out of proportion into “A man with a camera on the end of a telescoping monopod has been attempting to surreptitiously take photos up their skirts.” Although the woman herself [Lee deLay] is to be commended for having clarified that she herself had never made such an accusation. Seems that people should be a little more circumspect about bringing down the arm of the law on people without proper justification [aka evidence].

[Link: Skeptical Abyss; http://www.skepticalabyss.com/?p=31]

But the situation is starting to look like everyone should be wired for sight and sound – cameras and microphones on our persons just to be able to ensure no untoward or unwelcome “sexual harassment” takes place; starting to look like the joke about how porcupines make love [carefully] ...

As it turned out, "Dr. Buzzo" was well-known among women who attend such events for being a creepy guy. No, nobody actually witnessed him taking photographs, but the fact that he was walking around with a camera in the ideal position for doing so made some women uncomfortable. Being uncomfortable because a guy is walking around with a camera positioned for taking upskirt photographs is perfectly reasonable, and if there were a harassment policy in place, the worst thing that would happen is that the organizers would speak to him and tell him to stop it. He would only get kicked out if he continued doing it. Nobody tried to bring criminal charges against him.

Thanks for embodying the ridiculous hyperskepticism towards women's accounts of their own personal feelings and experiences I was talking about though.

Stop what? In the absence of evidence there’s nothing that he’s done that he should be stopping. Looks to me like you’re being judge, jury and executioner.

You might actually want to read in some detail the account of the woman who expressed her discomfort.

Thanks for embodying the ridiculous hyper-skepticism towards women's accounts of their own personal feelings and experiences I was talking about though.

De nada. But it really has nothing to do with my skepticism – hyper or hypo – and everything to do with objective facts – the evidence that a jury of our peers can use in a court of law. Your feelings –and those of everyone else for that matter: men, women, atheists, skeptics, Christians, Muslims – are certainly of some import. Although I notice that skeptics and atheists in general are not particularly loath to discount and deprecate the feelings, if not subject them to various depredations, of the religious in general and Muslims in particular. But to allow those feelings to dictate law is to abandon it to the whims of the Queen of Hearts ...

As I’m a Canadian I’m not particularly familiar with much of American law. But this bit from the Wikipedia article on the topic of “Sexual Harassment” might serve, at least as a starting point:

In the 1986 case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Supreme Court first recognized "sexual harassment" as a violation of Title VII, established the standards for analyzing whether the conduct was welcome and levels of employer liability, and that speech or conduct in itself can create a "hostile environment". The Civil Rights Act of 1991 added provisions to Title VII protections including expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive damages for sexual discrimination or harassment, and the case of Ellison v. Brady resulted in rejecting the reasonable person standard in favor of the "reasonable woman standard" which allowed for cases to be analyzed from the perspective of the complainant and not the defendant.

Although maybe there’s some difference in your reference to civil and criminal law. However, in either case, it would still seem to qualify as a crime: “An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.”

I don't have a link Ramsey but there was one person at The Atheist Experience blog arguing we should not concern ourselves with the feelings and comfort of others. xtog something. I'm sure you can find it. I'm off to take care of this headache.

And feel free to read that as handwaving. I really don't care at this point. Mass, you and the rest of atheist/skeptic sphere is convinced these people are a figment of my imagination so it's whatever at this point.

Ok, so here's a link to commenter m6wg4bxw who I incorrectly identified as xtog (who's someone entirely different). It's not as bad as some and the context is random date proposals rather than plain harassment but I don't see why his arguments wouldn't apply there.

If you'd like I can dig up quotes from blaghag but that'll have to wait until much later.

This reminds me of every Curb your Enthusiasm episode. If you're served before your friend at a restaurant, should you start eating or wait for your friend to be served? What's the right way to split the bill? If you're riding in the back seat, and a friend riding shotgun gets off, should you move to the front so that the driver doesn't feel like a chauffeur? What can skepticism say about etiquette when the rules are more subjective and diverse than the bigger moral arguments?

Your quaint metaphors fail to capture that "you" are regularly given preferential treatment over "your friend". To make your metaphors better suited to the actual arguments at hand, you need to assume that the waitstaff regularly treats you better than your friend, regularly undercharges you and/or overcharges your friend, and regularly assumes your friend to be the chauffeur.*

Then, given this long history of unfair treatment between "you" and "your friend", what are these "more subjective and diverse" rules governing the fair treatment of each of you? And while you may be free to assume that there are "bigger moral" issues than the discriminatory treatment that your friend regularly receives, would you begrudge your friend if s/he thought it was a pretty damn big deal?

* I'm not suggesting that these examples directly translate to treatment of men/women; just working within the confines of the examples that were given to work in a power imbalance that the original metaphors failed to consider.

I thought the issue with the hugging policy was that the policy asks for verbal consent, when clearly nonverbal consent is sufficient in this case. People make that "wanna hug" gesture, and then the other person makes their move to hug.

But upon reading Russell Blackford's post again, this appears not to be his primary argument. Instead he associates hugging with camaraderie, and says the policy infantilizes people who don't want hugs.

I don't like hugging. I just wasn't brought up that way, and it seems as weird to me as saying grace before a meal. Apparently this means I am undermining solidarity and mutuality, and making atheists look bad. "It suggests undue suspicion of physical interaction and the body that you’d think might be more the province of religion." And the onus is on me to reject hugs instead of other people getting nonverbal consent.

"The policy makes American Atheists – and atheists more generally – look silly. It suggests an undue suspicion of physical interaction and the body that you’d think might be more the province of religion"

"It" seems to refer to the policy. The policy makes AA look silly, people's preferences do not make them look silly.

miller: "And the onus is on me to reject hugs instead of other people getting nonverbal consent."

I'd say that's not quite true. The call-and-response type of nonverbal cues for hugging don't put much of a burden on the one who doesn't want to be hugged. In that scenario, the one who wants to initiate a hug opens his/her arms, and one avoids a hug simply by not responding to this gesture.

@Brian, I didn't mean to say that nonverbal consent is clearly in line with the policy. I meant to say that it's clear that that policy is wrong because the policy seems to require verbal consent.

In short, I agree with Blackford's conclusion, but I don't agree with his arguments. I think it isn't very compassionate to associate a lack of hugs with religious prude-ness.

@J.J. RamseyI felt that Blackford was placing the onus on me to reject hugs, and I was rejecting this position. However, on another glance, I am not sure Blackford actually says this anywhere, so I apologize if I misrepresented him.

That so much is made out of so little disagreement suggests that there are other issues at hand.

This issue is not really a skeptical/scientific one. To the degree it is anything beyond pride, reaction, respect and personality - it is socio politics.

Although science has something to say to this branch of the humanities, the messages are incomplete, often not what we want to hear and interpretations are too open to biases. To the degree that folks want to make this a central interest or a common topic of conversation - I suspect they'll simply devalue the coin of their own intellectual currency.

I find it ludicrous to think that we should not apply skeptical principles to sociology, politics, or sociopolitics. Especially since, as you say, our perceptions of these are often so influenced by our biases. Isn't skepticism the tool that allows us to rise above only listening to the stuff that we want to hear, that we already agree with in the first place? I don't see how this "devalues" our "intellectual currency."

The problem being that the article you linked isn't "thoughtful" at all. "Seek enthusiastic consent before you touch someone" isn't just a good rule for a conference, it's a good rule for LIFE.

This article and other like it are getting bogged down in things the policy doesn't say, for example that requests should be verbal, that consent should be written, or that it's any more than a suggestion.

YOU WILL NOT GET IN TROUBLE if you hug somebody who wants it. Whereas if you hug somebody who DOESN'T WANT IT, not only should you get in trouble, but you should feel like an ass.

The best way to avoid hugging somebody who doesn't want to be hugged isn't to avoid hugging, it's to seek unambiguous consent for hugging. This can be done simply an nonverbally, and you all know how to do it.

Some people hug way too much for my taste. Some people swear way too much for my taste. I feel like it's desensitizing. Maybe they think I'm too reserved. In Afghanistan, it's normal for men to hold hands, hug, and even kiss each other, but men never show such affection to women in public. Can there even be a rational argument for or against these rules? Are you going to look for a cohort study or what? There's always a balance between doing what makes others comfortable and what makes you comfortable. The majority sets the rules for what's considered normal, though if a normal behavior makes a lot of people uncomfortable, maybe it should be reconsidered.

well, so far this discussion has been more civil and productive than many others on the same topic, so the thread will stay open for a bit.

Before I quickly respond to a few comments, let me clarify that I never read comments on other people's blogs (like PZ's). I don't have the tine, and it's better for my liver anyway.

... (hmm, nice acronym...),

> Do you really think it is more important to wrecklessly hug (of course, there won't be any complaints whatsoever if the hug is welcome) than it is to establish a solid boundary for women's safety? <

No, obviously not. But this is a false dichotomy, as there are plenty of intermediate situations. And those are the ones that ought to make this discussion more nuanced and less self-righteous than it tends to be.

Steersman,

> Blog owners – and website owners – are certainly entitled to limit and control the discussions they are hosting. However, if the rules are applied inequitably – as certainly seems to be the case in more than a few of the others – then they tend to look less like forums for civilized discussion and more like echo chambers and bully pulpits. <

Agreed. I fancy myself better than that. I'm interested in reasoned dialog, not in a bully pulpit.

Melody,

> See, Massimo? *This* is the problem with your post. This fellow thinks, "Both sides do it!" He also compares the feminist movement with MRAs. This is what he got out of this post. <

First, you cannot reasonably hold me responsible for what people "get" out of my posts, unless I was unclear or willfully ambiguous. Second, you seem to be confusing two separate issues here. You are absolutely right that there aren't two sides to the harassment question: there is no ethical defense of harassment. But there are legitimate questions about what counts as harassment, and what sort of behavior is acceptable / non-acceptable / borderline acceptable, and by whom, and moreover what should be done about it. My comment about self-righteousness referred to my impression that even some people on the right side of the argument occasionally fall prey to a bit too much of B&W thinking, which hurts their (our) cause. No, I will not provide links to specific examples, because I have decided not to make this post a personal attack on anyone. If people think this is too vague, well, too bad I'm afraid.

The debate has not genuinely been about what harassment policies are better. The debate has been about those who speak up about harassment and those who deny it, and make women out to be exaggerating, lying, and hysterical. Any talk I've seen from critics of harassment policies are the same people who have made a hobby out of trying to hurt these women and the men who support them.

I agree that it is a false dichotomy, but in the context of the debate it isn't. People are pointing to the "don't hug people who don't want to be hug" policy as a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Can we say that? "Don't hug people who don't want to be hugged." We're all agreed on that, correct? So if you never hug someone who objects, no one will ever complain about it.

How do you know if someone doesn't want to be hugged? Either you have an established level of intimacy, you carefully read social cues, or you ask them.

That's it.

Any reasonable person gets that. Any reasonable person doesn't want to touch someone who doesn't want to be touched, doesn't want to make anyone uncomfortable.

So what exactly is the objection? The entire debate over the existence and appropriateness on an anti-harassment policy is now hanging on the thread of a non-starter.

People are pointing to it and saying, "See how unreasonable these people are being? This isn't about their safety, it's about restricting me."

Well, no, it isn't, since no reasonable person would be restricted.

The entire conversation is derailed and now we've expended however much energy giving credence to absurd slippery slopes. It's an active obstacle toward getting these policies in place and getting reasonable people to accept them.

Agreed. I fancy myself better than that. I'm interested in reasoned dialog, not in a bully pulpit.

Yes, I certainly think that is the case – why I made reference to “a few of the others” in the way I did; but certainly one of the better ones in terms of even-handedness of which there are, thankfully, more than a few. And in being scrupulously honest – not too many sites that I have seen which have actually tendered apologies as you did to Jerry Coyne. Although, to be fair, I happened to notice that Richard Dawkins tendered one to you for some “intemperate” remarks he made on WEIT – which I thought was also rather classy.

But the reasons for that, as I think you mentioned earlier during that apology, are probably somewhat instructive and quite interesting if not a source of some chagrin. As a number of people have noted we all tend to get the bit in our teeth during arguments and tend to get carried away. You might be interested in this post by a Christian minister – they’re not all born with horns in their heads – who argued that it is akin to St. Augustine’s “Lust for Domination”.

> You are encouraged to ask for unequivocal consent for all activities during the conference. No touching other people without asking. This includes hands on knees, backs, shoulders—and hugs (ask first!). There are folks who do not like to be touched and will respect and like you more if you respect their personal space. Your retraction, while not expected, will be appreciated. <

No retraction will be forthcoming because I read this very policy and I object to it on grounds similar to those brought up by Blackford.

Frank B,

> I find it incredible that some guys think it's OK to touch and hug strange women and go online to argue about it with women commenters. <

This is another example of straw man-like caricature of what Blackford and I are objecting to. We are objecting to the over-regulation of normal social interactions, we are not saying that anyone should have a free license to hug no matter what.

JediBear,

> "Seek enthusiastic consent before you touch someone" isn't just a good rule for a conference, it's a good rule for LIFE. <

That's right, and most people have no trouble following it. So why impose a formal regulation concerning it?

SallyStrange,

> Massimo says he objects to it. I don't understand why, unless he really has a thing about hugging people he doesn't know well, without checking first that it's okay. <

Massimo has no such fetish. But Massimo would prefer it that regulations of social behavior be kept to a minimum, lest they interfere with the joys of being human and spontaneous. Most normal human beings *do* check before hugging, verbally or otherwise.

Also, SallyStrange,

> given the current climate of sexism and automatically treating women's testimony as suspect, we have a long way to go before "assuming women are automatically right" is the most important problem on our plate. <

It most certainly isn't *the* most important problem on our plate. But then one could argue the same about women's issues themselves, since, you know, there are things like slavery and starvation in the world. It's another false dichotomy: not only it is not the case that we can be preoccupied by only one problem at a time, it is also the case that improving women issues has to go through a process of education of the men (and women) who are not so educated yet. That process includes engaging in dialog and in admitting that nobody is automatically right just because he or she belongs to a threatened group.

This makes your objection doubly baffling. If most people do check, then most people will not have a problem. And those who make a practice of not checking will either learn to do better, or be excluded. Your abstract distaste for an arbitrary standard of minimal or maximal social regulation is not a compelling counterweight to the concerns of those who have to worry about being touched without their permission on a regular basis.

"given the current climate of sexism and automatically treating women's testimony as suspect, we have a long way to go before "assuming women are automatically right" is the most important problem on our plate." --me

It most certainly isn't *the* most important problem on our plate. But then one could argue the same about women's issues themselves, since, you know, there are things like slavery and starvation in the world. It's another false dichotomy...

You're right. I should have said that I think that I think that the problem of not believing women's claims about sexual harassment and sexual assault is a much bigger problem than the problem of people automatically assuming women are right. It was clumsy phrasing on my part. Now that the dichotomy is no longer there, I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

The number of people out there who do assume that women are automatically right is quite tiny compared to those who have "women are lying" as the default setting. In fact, this "women are automatically right" is a common straw feminist propagated by those who would like to discredit feminism, much like the false claim that you were in danger of being accused of being a rapist or a rape apologist.

I find your credulity vis-a-vis these common attempts to discredit feminists to be quite disheartening.

That's right, and most people have no trouble following it. So why impose a formal regulation concerning it?

Most people have no trouble following a crime-free life, and yet to protect law abiding people from tho who do have such trouble, we have laws on the books detailing crimes and the consequences of those crimes.

You may as well ask why we impose a formal regulation against murder, theft and assault, when very few people do any of those things.

The policies are in place for when something goes wrong. Again, without a complainant, nothing happens.

That's right, and most people have no trouble following it. So why impose a formal regulation concerning it?

Massimo would prefer it that regulations of social behavior be kept to a minimum, lest they interfere with the joys of being human and spontaneous.

This is, of course, not the only thing that interferes with the joys of being human and spontaneous. Harassment itself, including the kind of nonconsensual behavior being discussed, also does that quite effectively. How many more people are (the generic) you willing to hug if you know you have a recourse if someone abuses that willingness? How many fewer if you don't?

The decisions about how these policies are written are not being made in a world that is happy and carefree until the rules are written. There are consequences to not writing rules to clarify that behavior outside that of "normal human beings" will not be tolerated. There are people who rely on those rules being unwritten when they decide to break them. Those people are both why we're all talking about this in the first place and why the unwritten rules need to be written out. The people who break those rules despite them being generally shared are the ones who set your minimum for an effective policy.

Do those rules necessarily need to be exactly the rules presented by American Atheists? I think my support for several different policies answers that question for me. But we do need to be clear that what determines the minimum required regulation for maximal freedom is not the behavior of the reasonable majority.

> That's right, and most people have no trouble following it. So why impose a formal regulation concerning it?

Because MOST people aren't ALL people.

I've never stolen a car nor had a car stolen from me. I doubt many of us know any car thieves or have suffered from their attentions. So why are there laws about car theft? Those laws don't apply to the vast majority of people.

"given the current climate of sexism and automatically treating women's testimony as suspect,"

"To act as if you are the police and to treat the women as if they are formally accusing someone of a crime, is not the sina qua non of skepticism. It is 'hyperskepticism,'"

"The number of people out there who do assume that women are automatically right is quite tiny compared to those who have 'women are lying' as the default setting."

Probability has laws governing what constitute reasonable estimates by a person of the chances something specific has happened.

"Defaults" can be useful tools in laws and rules, for example, presumptions of innocence in criminal court prevent some abuses of power by the powerful, and presumptions of guilt/treason for any soldier who retreats has historically at times been used as a motivator to encourage soldiers to hold their ground in a war. But "defaults" governing beliefs themselves, beliefs about what actually occurred, are inappropriate. Examples would be thinking (all or some subset of) accusers are actually automatically right or automatically wrong.

Likewise, beliefs about what likely happened often shouldn't be directly turned into verdicts.

All testimony is suspect, and all people have a non-zero chance of having done something seriously wrong. This applies to the accused, the accuser, and even the unaccused and silent. One's estimate of the chances of guilt should generally be different for each person, obviously, and should change as evidence is assimilated. But not from "automatically right" to "shown wrong" or along similar, non-probabilistic lines.

Sigh. Why can't people seriously think about what they want, and what the most effective way of obtaining it is, before they make their moves?

I think, if I gave it a bit of time, I could come up with a hundred different ways Watson could have used to attain her goals without causing a divisive ruckus in the community. I think I could come up with a few ways in which thunderf00t could have responded without contributing to said ruckus.The question is, how to repair the situation?

I don't know anything about that, really, but I will make a guess: Each side must step down, be conciliatory, apologize, and sensibly attempt to resolve their differences without causing warfare. Perhaps this is only the pipe dream of an ignorant man, but one can always hope!

Wincerind, to my mind you have made one of the more sensible comments here. I can't believe though that I wasted the time reading this entire thread, but I was unaware of this controversy, which seems way overblown.

There will be all sorts of people at an event, so I wonder what the percentage of them may be guilty of obnoxious behavior. If a person makes a mistake on my regard of being too familiar, I just move away or make some other sign. If the person does it a second time, then I let them know they are out of line.

What is obnoxious to me, may just be exuberance to another. I am from a nordic culture where even in the family, we didn't often express physical affection, but I have come to accept it more readily from acquaintances or even strangers, maybe because I have lived in several different countries with different customs.

Who knows, at an event I might meet a person like Monk in the tv series who has a phobia about shaking hands. How am I to know beforehand? I am not particularly fond of that rite myself, but it helps create social interaction. If people are offended at flirting, should a rule be added that there is an officially marked "flirting area", around the bar for instance? Then when you make mutual sympathetic eye contact, you can point that way.

More serious, I can name a couple of atheist blogs that have excluded me for my political arguments(I am an atheist too), because I don't insult or demean people personally on blogs. I have enough experience in formal debates to understand that that kind of act has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of an argument. When I am insulted, which happens more often than I expected, I just shrug my shoulders and point out the error.

If I had a blog, I would probably have a sidebar with a list of sites that explain debating procedure and debating errors. Posters would be required to read one before posting.

"Schmitt says her hug quest began after she moved to North Carolina from her native Connecticut. 'When I moved to North Carolina, it felt so lonely because no matter how many people I met, I was missing the connection to family and friends back home, where we hugged often,' she says in the video. 'So I challenged myself for an entire year to hug everyone I encountered and try to create that community that I missed from being back home.'"

Now, I find it weird and kinda sad for someone to recreate her lost connection to family and friends by hugging every stranger she encounters, but that's just me.Also see the Free Hugs Campaign.

"The debate has not genuinely been about what harassment policies are better. The debate has been about those who speak up about harassment and those who deny it, and make women out to be exaggerating, lying, and hysterical. Any talk I've seen from critics of harassment policies are the same people who have made a hobby out of trying to hurt these women and the men who support them."

Massimo links to a post by Russell Blackford, and that post discusses one of mine. So presumably you're making a claim about us--that we "have made a hobby out of trying to hurt these women and the men who support them." There's about as much truth to that as saying that we like to torture cats. It just does not help for you to demonize people who see things differently than you do and that's what you're doing.

I can't speak for Melody on this one but I don't think that yours and Russell's blog post are indicative of the level of discussion on various fora regarding this matter. You are talking about two blog posts among hundreds. That's not including facebook, twitter, and a new forum that can only be described as a hate site of FTB who's busiest discussion topic is the continuation of a 10,000+ obscenity-laden comment thread that started after Rebecca Watson's incident last summer.

In keeping with Massimo's general direction of this discussion to not name specific individuals I can think of many such cases that absolutely match what Melody is referring to.

This is only natural by the way. By way of a different example, there's very little public racism in the US anymore of the type we saw say in the 50's. Does this mean many of the attitudes don't exist? Of course they do and we see them via coded language, dog whistles, etc. such as discussions of "welfare queens", certain mentions of "affirmative action", and so on. Does this mean all mentions of these topics are by racists? No. But we do have to tread carefully.

Incidentally, there are many who say that this type of more subtle racism is more difficult to combat because of the easier deniability of the language used.

Circling back to misogyny today there are a lot of parallels. In the US outside of perhaps some radical imams you won't see anyone publicly advocating for wife-beating (unlike the 50's) or calling female staff "sweetheart", etc. But let's not kid ourselves that there aren't lingering superiority complexes at work. So for example Bernice Sandler gave a talk at the Women in Secularism conference talking about the "chilly climate" as she called it for women in the modern workforce whereby they were more likely to be interrupted that male colleagues.

I haven't read your post, Jean. I have read the opinions of those who irrationally criticized Rebecca Watson for saying something rather innocuous and followed their abuse of her and others throughout the year. Those same people continued criticizing women who have decided to speak out about sexual harassment in the movement. AA's policy is just something for those people to latch on to to convince everyone that this is the result of the evil rad-fems.

Melody, Thanks for your reply, but in his July 16 4:53 comment, Massimo reminds you that he's talking about AA's "ask before you touch" policy, and that he's agreeing with what Russell says about it. What's the point of saying "any talk" you've seen from critics of harassment policies is from people "who have made a hobby of trying to hurt these women", when Massimo is explicitly presenting you with a new critic, someone he's recommending as "thoughtful"? Why keep your focus on these misogynistic haters of Rebecca? Naturally, I assumed you had looked at the post being discussed here, half of which is about my own post. But OK, you didn't. I guess, then, case closed.

It's a good thread because the closest I've ever seen someone who would take a measure (a slight measure in massimo's case) of "we don't need to ask for permission before we touch people!" come to a reasonable argument. What makes it great is how utterly horribly Massimo's argument fails, and how incredibly easy it is to refute it.

The closest I can come to the position that Massimo is taking is this quote:

"We are objecting to the over-regulation of normal social interactions."

And about which, as has been pointed out repeatedly, without a complainant (that is, not the person you got consent from) the policy doesn't go into effect. It's blindingly obvious that this policy is about giving people who are targeted by real harrassment recourse and making people who harrass modify their behavior without ever affecting the way people normally behave in regular social situations. A point to which Massimo apparently agrees!

So the butt of Massimo's take is not that the policy will have deleterious effects on normal social interactions. He admits it can't because normal social interactions already fulfill it. He even agrees that harassment exists and that surprise hugging strangers without consent is harassment!

So what's the reason? The reason is that he doesn't like it. He openly admits that this policy doesn't change anything or do anything except punish people who actually commit harassment and help those who've been harassed. But he doesn't like it, therefore it's wrong.

I don't really participate in comment threads, but I'm definitely pointing people I know to this thread so they can see just how devoid of constructive points even the most reasonable, intelligent and charitable of the people on the wrong side of the "misogyny wars" is capable of.

> This makes your objection doubly baffling. If most people do check, then most people will not have a problem. And those who make a practice of not checking will either learn to do better, or be excluded. <

What baffles me is how some people on this thread do not seem to appreciate the underlying point: there will never be total safety for everyone. So every law, rule or regulation has to balance actual threats (in terms of degree of harm and frequency of occurrence) with whatever else one loses by regulating people's behavior. I have been in countless social situations, both at and outside of conventions, and I haven't seen a single example of the problem the AA policy is supposed to address. I'm not saying they don't happen, but they must be pretty rare, and most people seem to be able to deal with them when they do occur. Setting up too stifling policies may lead to less participation, less spontaneity, and less of a community - all things that we value and ought to be balanced with security.

> The number of people out there who do assume that women are automatically right is quite tiny compared to those who have "women are lying" as the default setting. <

I don't know, do you? We pride ourselves in being members of an evidence-based community. Can you refer me to evidence that your statement is empirically correct? It may be, but I'd like to check.

... (you really ought to get a better handle),

> People are pointing to the "don't hug people who don't want to be hug" policy as a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. <

Who, exactly, is doing that? Certainly not I.

> Most people have no trouble following a crime-free life, and yet to protect law abiding people from tho who do have such trouble, we have laws on the books detailing crimes and the consequences of those crimes. You may as well ask why we impose a formal regulation against murder, theft and assault, when very few people do any of those things. <

It is that sort of hyperbole that I have a problem with and prompted me to call for moderation in the debate. Seriously, you see no difference between a policy regulating hugging and a law prohibiting murder?

Michael,

> Because MOST people aren't ALL people <

See my comment above about the costs of total security, as well as the other one about comparing hugging to theft of murder.

Just building on what you say here, I think it might be reasonably analogous to the trade off between privacy and security. Allowing intelligence organisations access to our entire lives *may* help improve security, but even if most of us do not have anything to hide, there is something about living under constant surveillance that is unsettling. Again its an example where everyone has the same goals (to live in a society free of the fear of external attack in this case), but it absolutely isn't clear where the line should be drawn.

To some extent it's about trust. An anti-harassment policy can be read as implying that attendees cannot be trusted to behave themselves, and that's also off-putting. I get that this is sometimes true, but the vast majority of us can. The trade off is between how many people (probably mostly women) who will be put off by a feeling that organisers don't take harassment seriously compared to how many people will be put off by a feeling that organisers don't trust them at all. The second feels like it should be analogous to the 'chilling effect', but I don't have anything to back that up. I don't think that effect should be underestimated either or dismissed out of hand, especially when so many of the people who seem to object to the way this has played out are also women.

When a bull goes through a china shop, it is unaware of the shards all over the floor. There are men out there who are quite capable of ignoring or denying the harassment they cause. I have seen it and women comment about it all the time. There is no sense in denying the problem. An harassment policy and a mechanism for reporting is basic common sense. Otherwise how will the bulls know what they are doing. Another point I want to make concerns all the hand wringing over the strictness of the policies and the inhibition it would cause. So how exactly would this inhibition work? If a guy is trying to impress a girl, he certainly wouldn't want to creep her out. So why would the existence of a policy change anything? If a guy is not interested in a relationship or conversation but just wants to squeeze the ladies, then he needs to be inhibited. The fear that convention organizers will go around with jack boots on and be unfair to guests is not reasonable.

Apologies for the handle, I did it quickly (and lazily). If I comment on other posts, I will change it to something more personal.

I have hard time taking accusations of hyperbole from someone who seems to be claiming that this encouragement to ask people before hugging them is going to poison human discourse and the brotherhood and sisterhood of atheism.

Blackford's post is a study in hyperbole. It posits an absurd conclusion, which has been debunked repeatedly.

Whereas I make a comparison of kind -- policies/laws intended to prevent/punish harms done within the community the policies/laws are intended to protect -- to illustrate their purpose and that is dismissed as hyperbole.

Moreover, it serves to dismiss the validity of women's complaints as being not as important. No, harassment doesn't compare to murder. Neither does theft. They're both still bad, and the those differences are accounted for in the consequence phase, not in the prevention phase.

Meanwhile, the points I made remain unanswered.

That doesn't strike me as very intellectually honest.

I'll even extend my comparison further. Do we agree that theft is bad? Do we agree that harassment is bad? Do we agree that people should be protected from both of these things?

Do we agree that unnecessary regulation is bad? Do we agree that there should be the fewest restrictions on human action and interaction?

I'm betting we're in agreement about all those things. So then the only question is what kind of restrictions are required and to what degree.

We already know that "none" is not sufficient. For our stated goals there will be restrictions, specifically against behavior which harms.

Are we in agreement about that?

So now we're left with this hugging policy, one which has been demonstrated as moot for those who do not cause harm. Repeatedly, this has been demonstrated, and neither you nor Jean Kazez have replied to these critiques of your/her/Blackford's argument.

I mean, I get that it's fun to get all abstract and theoretical, and that theoretical abstractions are very useful about how we think about some practical things and their outcomes. I wish more people had the capacity for abstraction.

But at some point, you have to stop thinking about chess and start playing the checker game already in progress.

If you, or anyone else, has a practical reason why we should focus on changing the hugging policy, I would love to hear it. Seriously, genuinely. I hope you make those same arguments to AA.

In the absence of that, I have to consider the focus on the matter to be obstructionist -- either willfully or obtusely.

With regard to any law which criminalizes harassment, please see Sec. 947.013 of the statutes of the great State of Wisconsin, which I think would render harassment in certain cases, broadly construed, a felony; in other cases subject to a forfeiture. It doesn't appear to address sexual harassment specifically, though.

Should add that I was trying to reply to the very specific issue of the "ask before hugging" policy and not to the post in general. The post is general enough, even with a dash of weird false equivalence, and it's a step in the right direction. I was focusing on just the thread that contains the things I woted. Don't know why the reply didn't work...

> as has been pointed out repeatedly, without a complainant (that is, not the person you got consent from) the policy doesn't go into effect. It's blindingly obvious that this policy is about giving people who are targeted by real harrassment recourse <

Yes, we all understand that. You, however, seem to underestimate or dismiss the fact that this kind of policy also likely has other effects, such as a chilling one on social relations in an environment in which we are trying to build a community. Why exactly is the latter not a value to be balanced with security? Why should the latter be overwhelming the debate, particularly when the number of people harassed that way is likely small and the consequences usually very limited?

Simon,

> I can't speak for Melody on this one but I don't think that yours and Russell's blog post are indicative of the level of discussion on various fora regarding this matter. You are talking about two blog posts among hundreds. <

Forgive me, but that's a non sequitur. Melody and others were making comments about *this* blog post, and/or about Russell's and Jean's posts. It makes no sense to criticize us as if we were aligned with those countless other blogs you are referring to. Guilt by association? And the association simply consists in addressing a similar topic?

Frank,

> There is no sense in denying the problem. An harassment policy and a mechanism for reporting is basic common sense. <

This is a straw man argument. Nobody denied the need for sexual harassment policies (certainly not I, Russell or Jeane). The issue is which policies and what limits.

Magicthighs,

> Are anti-battery laws infantilising too? <

Again, I'm flabbergasted by the apparent inability of people to make pretty obvious distinctions between, say, hugging on the one hand (a normal human behavior, under most circumstances) and battery (always an abnormal and punishable behavior under all circumstances).

As a feminist I think that this "ask before hugging" controversy is really, really important, because it highlights a significant problem with the feminist commenters - the inability to accept valid criticism of ostensibly pro-feminist ideas.

Massimo acknowledges the need for codes of conduct, and for good ones at that. He simply points out that the AA's code of conduct takes a step in the wrong direction. Take, for example, the code of conduct of the Secular Student Alliance, or the Center for Inquiry, or a number of other groups: They don't have this "explicit ask" language, yet they are equally effective.

It reminds me of the Exxon Valdez spill. Shortly after the spill, lawmakers rushed to pass new legislation that required that all ships approaching US ports have a "double-hull" design. This was a "step in the wrong direction", because the Exxon Valdez spill wouldn't have been prevented by a double-hulled design, and double-hulled designs have their own flaws.

The point being that there are valid reasons to be opposed to such language as confusing and, more to the point, unnecessary: Greta Christina wrote a short post after the SSA conference indicating that nobody there bothered with explicit asking, and yet they all had a safe, enjoyable time, because the SSA code of conduct clearly explained what behavior constituted harassment and what the reporting procedure was.

A large number of comments here accuse Massimo of false equivalency, but I think that they are missing the point: I think He's trying to say that there are things that the feminist community could do better. that we need to recognize that, while we're way ahead of the MRM community (nothing to be too proud of) in terms of being right, we still get things wrong, and we need to be better at recognizing that.

False equivalency would be to imply that the feminist community is 'as bad' as the MRM community. I didn't get that sense from Massimo's article. I heard 'yes, misogynists suck, but we can't ignore our own blind spots and missteps just because MRAs are assholes, and we can't turn on each other the moment that there's a disagreement'.

Massimo said, "I have been in countless social situations, both at and outside of conventions, and I haven't seen a single example of the problem the AA policy is supposed to address."

You are right that you didn't say the problem doesn't exist, but that comes pretty damn close. When women want to make nice and avoid confrontation, of what use are your experiences? The comments of people who have experienced harassment is the key to understanding. There are a lot of women who do not want to be touched. Policies need to reflect that.

You are right that you didn't say the problem doesn't exist, but that comes pretty damn close.

Looks to me like you – and others here – have your thumbs on the scales. Massimo has said repeatedly, in various ways, that:

(I hope it’s clear that I’m talking about actual borderline cases, not instances of men brazenly groping women in public, or making threats of rape via Twitter.)

Doesn’t look to me much like any assertion that “the problem doesn’t exist”.

The comments of people who have experienced harassment is the key to understanding. There are a lot of women who do not want to be touched. Policies need to reflect that.

Nor is he denying that some “have experienced harassment”:

But I take it the relentless attacks [Rebecca Watson] has been subjected to lately have taken a bit of a toll.

But reading the comments of some major figures ... it’s clear to me that there is a problem.

Looks to me like the policy that you and others have in mind is one that you think would, supposedly or potentially, address the problem of “men brazenly groping women in public” while his concern – and that of others including, apparently, various feminists – is that that policy – at least as it was written for the AA – is likely to be unworkable for any number of reasonable reasons.

Just insisting on that policy without addressing those potential problems doesn’t look like a reasonable way forward. Although the CFI alternative suggested, as good as it appears to be, may have a few problems of its own – devil in the details and all of that ....

> it serves to dismiss the validity of women's complaints as being not as important. No, harassment doesn't compare to murder. Neither does theft. <

Nobody is trying to dismiss women's complaints, but hugging rises to the level of harassment only under very unusual circumstance, and it is significantly different from other crimes, from rape to theft to murder. There are important distinctions to be made.

> So now we're left with this hugging policy, one which has been demonstrated as moot for those who do not cause harm. <

We have explicitly stated what the potent problem with the policy is: to chill human relations, to make the gatherings less enjoyable, and to undermine a sense of community. That's pretty concrete. Do we have empirical evidence of this? No, nobody has done any study of atheist conventions that I know. But by the same token also all the talk about hugs being a problem is rather empirically vacuous.

Melody,

> I haven't read your post, Jean. I have read the opinions of those who irrationally criticized Rebecca Watson for saying something rather innocuous and followed their abuse of her and others throughout the year. <

I find this rather bizarre and disappointing. So you (and Rebecca, unfortunately) are saying that you lashed out at Jean, Russell and me because what we wrote could be misused by others for irrational purposes? Wow. Whatever happened to considering arguments on their own merits? Or recognizing that people who agree with you in the great scheme of things may actually disagree on the details, specific applications or tactics to be deployed?

More generally, I find it interesting that so many people on this thread focused on (and argued vehemently about) the "no hugs" issue, which in fact was only mentioned in passing in a postscript to the main post. I do wander what people think of my main points, or even whether they've read the darn thing.

What I said applies to the criticisms I have read about sexual harassment policies. I am not going to name names except that Jean's blog wasn't one of them, as I didn't read it. I was not lashing out at you. I was disappointed with one sentence you wrote and I was hoping for a clarification or apology.

I think Massimo's point is that it's hard to come up with a reasonable scenario when abiding by this rule would provide measurable comfort and protection for women.

First of all, let's read the actual wording in question:

"You are encouraged to ask for unequivocal consent for all activities during the conference. No touching other people without asking."

Taken at even a reasonable reading, you would, necessarily, need explicit permission to shake hands. I think that everyone agrees that that outcome is not the intended result of the rule, so let's rephrase to eliminate that ambiguity..? Now you're starting to get into the tall weeds.

Let me put it a different way: there are already social rules for engaging in a handshake or not. There are already good social rules for engaging in a hug or not (i.e. the "wanna hug?" open-armed gesture etc.). There are already good social rules for most kinds of physical contact, like tapping someone on the shoulder to get their attention if they can't here you. The question to proponents of the above wording is this: What is the use-case? Where will this rule apply where current standards of behavior fail?

e.g. We already have laws prohibiting people from being on private property without permission. Do we need an additional law prohibiting parking on private property without explicit permission?

Instead lets take a step back and consider what it is that a harassment policy needs to accomplish:

Also, Massimo, I did read your whole post, and I very much appreciate it, especially the idea that having privilege does not automatically preclude someone from speaking intelligently about issues facing the unprivileged. Certainly it's harder, but it can be very frustrating to work very hard at doing so, only to have your thoughts dismissed out of hand.

Because I don't spend my days in the feminist blogosphere, I think I avoid dealing with a lot of MRAs. The more blog posts that I read about this subject, the more I encounter, and they are, to put it bluntly, infuriating. They're as bad as the worst presuppositional apologists; the shifting goalposts, the unfounded assertions posing as questions, the nitpicking and derailing...

If I had to deal with that on a regular basis, I can see where my ability to discern friend from foe would quickly deteriorate. So many people who deny that the concept of privilege exists, or that misogyny is vastly more common than misandry, sound reasonable at first.

I used to wonder why it was that when I criticized small but real missteps in feminist reasoning or policy, like the AA policy, other commenters suddenly started treating me like a rape-apologist. It takes pages of posts to get to a point where they start acknowledging the actual arguments that I've put forward instead of straw-men.

I understand why that happens now, but I'm at a loss to figure out what to do about it.

I understand why that happens now, but I'm at a loss to figure out what to do about it.

I expect it is frequently the case of the tail of self-righteous anger wagging the dog of rational discourse ...

Not that knowing that does much to alleviate the symptoms or causes. Although I find that, periodically and in some cases at least, pointing out the self-indulgent nature of the beast tends, mixing metaphors, to take the wind out of their sails ....

People might be interested in this YouTube video from 2007 on hugging in schools. It describes “two recent news stories of students being disciplined or held in detention for hugging a friend”. The bottom line of the blurb is:

These stories are yet another example of the flawed sexual harassment policies that permeate all levels of American education.

I thought one of the panelists made a sensible observation [at 00:57]: “Zero tolerance almost always means zero sense.”

Improperly thought-out rules frequently tend to be the proverbial cures worse than the disease.

I'm not sure what I am supposed to apologize for. Did you miss my clarification? Here it is again:

P.P.S.: Since it's clear from early comments that the point of my P.S. wasn't clear, I am clarifying it now. I meant the above as an example of the sort of trolling that goes on in these instances and is entirely unhelpful to a reasonable debate. I did NOT believe that I was going to be branded a rape apologist and be banned from discussion groups.